Kinda the title. My players are going up against a fairly competentcy caster soon and I was contemplating using attack and damage rolls against them in the fight. I've been worried about introducing them into the game because the internet says its bad to do that to PCs. The party is a monk, sorcerer and cleric. How acceptable is this? Thoughts?
Ok, so, I just found this sub recently, and I have thought about this old game for YEARS and haven't had any success, so maybe someone here has an idea.
Back when I was a kid (late 80s/early 90s) I vividly remember this arcade cabinet that had a streets of rage/final fight style of game play. The bad guys did look like the Streets of Rage 2/3 "punks" with the mohawks/spiky hair. It started down in a subway platform and after 5he first stage ypu got on a subway car. There was no fighting in/on the car like there is in final fight and again the graphic style was more like SoR2. I know there were like bootleg versions of games that would occasionally be in cabinets back then (like the rainbow edition of street fighter 2) but I really remember the stages not being either Streets of Rage or Final Fight as I have played those games today and they definitely arent what I remember unless the ports of those games to hide consoles are different.
Interviewed today, this place today. They said all the good/right things, gave me everything I wanted. Money will be mid but it will be about what I was making with less hours out of the industry. How screwed am I?
Real quick, when using quotes I understand that these phrases are common speech and "do a lot of work"
​
Ok, so at the Plank length "physics breaks down" (is this true for other Plank constants?). Now my limited understanding is that at least part of the reasoning for that statement is that the mathematics involved produces infinities and math that produces infinities means something isnt right from a pure mathematical standpoint point.
​
Maybe I'm not understanding something but why is it a problem to say that the Plank length is "the smallest unit" if thats what the math says before it "breaks down" and we literally cannot observe anything smaller.
​
I understand that there are other "things that exist" that we know about/measure indirectly via other measurements (dark matter, dark energy, speed of darkness?) That we are still looking to understand because we KNOW there are things/should be something there.
​
What do we know that is smaller than the plank length that we have either measured directly (my understanding is we cant and never will) or indirectly to support that something even exists below the Plank length? Why is it wrong to conclude that nothing exists smaller than the Plank length? Is this just the absence of evidence isnt the evidence of absence?
​
We say "nothing" travels faster than the speed of light because we use light to measure and if it doesnt interact with light we cant directly measure it, but we accept that is the limit. Why do we not accept that there is a finite value of measurement in regards to the Plank length being such?
​